IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/utilit/v17y2005i03p310-332_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Doctrine of Sufficiency: A Defence

Author

Listed:
  • BENBAJI, YITZHAK

Abstract

This article proposes an analysis of the doctrine of sufficiency. According to my reading, the doctrine's basic positive claim is ‘prioritarian’: benefiting x is of special moral importance where (and only where) x is badly off. Its negative claim is anti-egalitarian: most comparative facts expressed by statements of the type ‘x is worse off than y’ have no moral significance at all. This contradicts the ‘classical’ priority view according to which, although equality per se does not matter, whenever x is worse off than y, at least some priority should be assigned to helping x. Section I elaborates and defends this reconstruction of the doctrine of sufficiency, and section II shows that the privileged utility level presumed within the sufficiency framework exists.

Suggested Citation

  • Benbaji, Yitzhak, 2005. "The Doctrine of Sufficiency: A Defence," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 310-332, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:utilit:v:17:y:2005:i:03:p:310-332_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0953820805001676/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pritchard, John P. & Zanchetta, Anna & Martens, Karel, 2022. "A new index to assess the situation of subgroups, with an application to public transport disadvantage in US metropolitan areas," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 86-100.
    2. Wouters, S. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Rohde, K.I.M. & Vromen, J.J. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2017. "Acceptable health and priority weighting: Discussing a reference-level approach using sufficientarian reasoning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 158-167.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:utilit:v:17:y:2005:i:03:p:310-332_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/uti .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.